Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social committee and the Committee of the Regions -  Responding to the Five-Year Assessment of Community research activities (1999-2003) carried out by high level independent experts {SEC(2005) 1054}
Date: 2005-08-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, EU research policy, project evaluation, research programme, self-employed person, technological change

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 24.8.2005 
COM(2005) 387 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Responding to the Five-Year Assessment of Community research activities (1999-2003) 
carried out by high level independent experts 

{SEC(2005) 1054} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Responding to the Five-Year Assessment of Community research activities (1999-2003) 
carried out by high level independent experts 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

In  the  second  half  of  2004,  a  strategic  Panel  of  thirteen  high  level  experts1  carried  out  the 
Five-Year Assessment covering Community research activities 1999-2003 and as foreseen in 
the Decisions concerning the 6th Framework Programme2. In response, the Panel provided a 
clear  and  authoritative  overview  and  assessment,  at  a  horizontal  level,  of  Community 
research  activities,  through  a  thorough  evidence-based  analysis  of  the  implementation  and 
achievements  of  past  and  current  activities.  In  accordance  with  the  Decisions  on  the 
6th Framework  Programme,  the  Commission  hereby  communicates  the  conclusions  of  this 
assessment  accompanied  by  its  observations  to  the  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.  

The  Five-Year  Assessment  report  and  its  analysis,  conclusions  and  recommendations,  are 
warmly welcomed by the Commission.  

First, the Commission agrees with the Panel on the four main challenges identified: attract and 
reward the best talent; create a high-potential environment for business and industrial RTD; 
mobilise  resources  for  innovation  and  sustainable  growth;  build  trust  in  science  and 
technology.  

Second, it notes the positive assessment of the implementation, results and added value of the 
Framework  Programmes,  notably  in  terms  of  contribution  to  the  European  knowledge  base, 
networking among researchers and structuring of the research system in Europe.  

Finally,  it  broadly  agrees  with  the  recommendations  put  forward  in  order  to  improve  the 
relevance and quality of research initiatives and programmes at present and in the future. The 
Commission’s  proposals  for  the  7th  Framework  Programme,  adopted  on  6  April  2005,  take 
full account of these recommendations. They also will be kept in mind in the preparation of 
the entire legal framework for Community research, notably the specific programmes and the 
rules for participation and dissemination of results. 

The evaluation report has been disseminated widely, including through Europa3 and presented 
to and welcomed by the main stakeholders, notably the relevant committee and Working party 
of the European Parliament and Council, CREST and programme committees.  

1 
2 

3 

See list of experts in Appendix 
Decision 1513/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 232 of 29.08.2002, and 
Council Decision 2002/668/Euratom, OJ L 232 of 29.08.2002. 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/reports/2004/pdf/fya_en.pdf 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
The  Commission  warmly  thanks  the  Five-Year  Assessment  Panel  for  its  creative  ideas  and 
valuable  work  which  have  already  provided  and  will  certainly  continue  to  provide  an 
important input to the Community research. 

A more detailed analysis and comments for each specific recommendation are provided in the 
Commission staff Working Paper {SEC(2005) 1054}. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 

FIVE-YEAR ASSESSMENT OF  

THE EUROPEAN UNION 

RESEARCH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES 

1999-2003 

* 

** 

Composition of the Panel 

*** 

Executive Summary 

** 

*

4 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMPOSITION OF THE 1999-2003 FIVE-YEAR ASSESSMENT PANEL 

Dr. Erkki Ormala (Chairman) 
Vice President, Technology Policy, Nokia Corporation 

Prof. Nicholas Vonortas (Rapporteur) 
Professor and Director, Center for International Science and Technology Policy & Associate  
Professor, Department of Economics, The George Washington University 

Dr. Ségolène Ayme 
Director of Research, INSERM (Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale),  
SC11 “Gene mapping and Clinical Research”; Director of Orphanet 

Dr. Lucija Čok 
Rector, University of Primorska, Former Minister for Education, Research and Sport 

Prof. Dervilla Donnelly 
Chair of the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies; Emeritus Professor of Organic Chemistry,  
University College, Dublin 

Finland

USA, Greece

France

Slovenia

Ireland

Dr. Julia King 
Principal , Faculty of Engineering, Imperial College London 

United Kingdom

Prof. Christoph Mandl 
Faculty of Business, Economics and Computer Science, University of Vienna; Director of Mandl, 
Luethi & Partner 

Prof. Frieder Meyer-Krahmer 
Director, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI) 

Prof. Elzbieta H. Oleksy 
Dean of the Faculty of International and Political Studies, University of Lodz; Founding Director  
of Women's Studies Centre, University of Lodz 

Prof. Alexandre Quintanilha 
Professor in Biophysics, University of Porto 

Prof. Nicoletta Stame 
Professor of Sociology Università di Roma "La Sapienza"; President of the European Evaluation  
Society (EES) 

Dr. Rolf Tarrach 
Professor of Theoretical Physics at the University of Barcelona - Dept. ECM; Former President  
of the Spanish Council for Scientific Research 

Austria

Germany

Poland

Portugal

Italy

Spain

Prof. Françoise Thys-Clement 
Chairperson of the Erasme Hospital Council; Professor and Director of the Centre of Economics  
of Education at the ULB 

Belgium

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The  current  Treaty  of  the  European  Union  identifies  two  core  strategic  objectives  for  the 
European Research Framework Programmes: (i) strengthening the scientific and technological 
bases  of  industry  to  encourage  its  international  competitiveness  and  (ii)  supporting  other 
policies of the European Union 

This  Report,  the  third  Five-Year  Assessment  of  the  Research  Framework  Programmes 
(European  Community,  Euratom),  reviews  the  implementation  and  achievements  of  the 
Framework  Programmes  over  the  period  1999-2003.  The  recommendations  cover  the 
remainder  of  the  Sixth  Framework  Programme,  to  2006,  and  suggest  improvements  to  the 
nature  and  direction  of  future  Framework  Programmes.  In  making  these  recommendations, 
the objective is to provide well-informed input to strengthen the quality, relevance and impact 
of current and future Framework Programmes. 

THE CHALLENGE 

During  the  period  covered  by  this  Report  the  European  policy  landscape  has  changed 
significantly  as  a  result  of  the  introduction  of  the  Lisbon  and  Barcelona  objectives  and  the 
establishment of the European Research Area (ERA). 

Moreover,  the  overall  European  economic  and  research  landscape  is  in  flux.  Global 
knowledge-based competition is changing fundamentally the environment in which European 
research and industry operate. Europe and the rest of the industrialised world can no longer 
take  their  technological  leadership  for  granted.  Whilst  Europe  still  maintains  leadership  in 
certain  industrial  areas,  supported  by  a  well-educated  workforce,  concern  about  the  future 
arises from the rapid expansion of European industry research and technological development 
and  demonstration  (RTD)  outside  Europe  and  the  inability  to  attract  the  best  talent  into 
Europe  from  around  the  world.  The  increasing  availability  of  high-quality,  industrially 
relevant knowledge,  efficient  innovation  environments, and easier access  to  markets outside 
Europe are contributing to a gradual loss of European competitiveness. 

Europe is, increasingly, falling behind its main competitors. Europe’s performance, in terms 
of growth, productivity and job creation is not sufficient to maintain prosperity in the future. 
These  developments,  and  the  challenges  they  raise,  are  reported  in  some  detail  in  recent 
reports, such as those by Sapir (2003) and Kok (2004). The broad consensus is that research, 
education and innovation are at the heart of any response to these challenges. 

European  universities  and  research  institutions  have  traditionally  been  able  to  develop  and 
maintain the European knowledge base. In many fields this is still the case. However, only a 
few European universities are recognised as global leaders. This is, at least in part, a result of 
insufficient resources combined with the fragmented nature of the European RTD landscape. 
European  universities  and  institutes  are  yet  to  fully  respond  to  global  competition  for 
knowledge and talent. 

In  a  knowledge-based  economy  innovation  depends  critically  on  collaborative  networks 
involving  academic  and  business  enterprise  research.  The  conventional  view  of  a  linear 
process  of  academic-based  knowledge  creation  subsequently  picked  up  and  exploited  by 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
industry has given way to a new practice of interactive innovation facilitated by public/private 
partnerships, knowledge sharing and mutual learning. 

Meanwhile,  the  new  Member  States  are  in  the  process  of  transition.  They  must, 
simultaneously,  create  an  enterprise-friendly  environment  whilst  building  conditions  for  the 
knowledge-based  economy.  Institutional  reforms  and  the  allocation  of  sufficient  resource  to 
knowledge creation and sharing are both necessary steps in building a sustainable economic 
future.  The  intelligent  use  of  structural  funds  combined  with  other  EU  and  national 
instruments could provide solutions to these challenges. 

The general public in Europe is becoming concerned about the social and economic impact of 
scientific  and  technological  advances,  as  well  as  about  how  decisions  relating  to  these 
developments  are  taken.  In  some  areas  the  lack  of  public  support  is  clearly  apparent.  For 
Europe  to  achieve  the  leadership  in  science  and  technology  that  is  crucial  for  future 
prosperity, these concerns have to be addressed at both European and national levels. 

In order to reverse the trends, Europe – the EU and the Member States together – must take 
coordinated actions to meet four key challenges to: 

•  attract and reward the best talent 

•  create a high-potential environment for business and industrial RTD 

•  mobilise resources for innovation and sustainable growth 

•  uild trust in science and technology. 

The  Commission’s  proposal  to  substantially  increase  the  European  research  budget  in  the 
future  is  a  welcome  step  in  the  right  direction.  This  provides  an  opportunity  to  strengthen, 
significantly, the European knowledge base and  European  competitiveness.  However,  it can 
only succeed if this increase is accompanied by increases in the RTD budgets of the Member 
States.  The  signals  are  clear:  the  European  Union  as  a  whole  must  invest  more  in  RTD  to 
respond appropriately to these challenges. 

ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS 

The Panel concludes that the EU Research Framework Programmes have played an important 
role in developing the European knowledge base over the period of the review (1999-2003). 
The Framework  Programmes have corrected some of the  deficiencies  in the European RTD 
landscape  and  have  contributed  significantly  to  bridging  the  gap  between  RTD  and 
innovation. The strong emphasis on information and communication technologies and on life 
sciences  has,  for  example,  been  instrumental  in  strengthening  European  capabilities.  There 
has  been  strong  interest  from  industry,  universities,  and  other  research  institutes.  The 
Framework Programmes have played an important part in the generation and diffusion of new 
knowledge  and  the  formation  and  reinforcement  of  inter-organizational  networks,  both 
amongst European players and including players in associated States. All reports seen by the 
Panel, whether at Community or Member State level, consistently emphasised the significant 
additionality and European added value for the Framework Programmes. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
Despite notable successes, however, the achievement of the Framework Programmes has been 
more  modest  in  terms  of  direct  contribution  to  innovations  with  the  potential  to  deliver 
dominance  in  global  markets.  here  has  been  much  discussion  of  this  apparent  ‘weakness’. 
owever, evaluations and impact studies are generally conducted too early for major economic 
impacts  to  be  evident.  Moreover,  the  production  of  specific  innovations  has  never  been  the 
core focus of the Framework Programme, which has been the strengthening of the European 
research system as a whole. Given the budgetary limitations of the Programme – less than five 
percent  of  the  total  government  RTD  expenditure  in  the  EU  area  –  we  consider  the 
achievements of the Framework Programme in this ‘structural’ role very important indeed. 

PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME 

Based on the review detailed in this Report, the Panel makes the following recommendations 
to strengthen the relevance and impact of the Framework Programme, and to improve user-
friendliness: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

The  aspiration  for  European  RTD  must  be  better  articulated  and  clearly 
reflected  in  the  Framework  Programme.  The  Framework  Programme  would 
benefit  from  a  better  focus  at  the  overall  priority  level  and  reduced  specificity  at 
individual programme level. 

The Framework Programme should primarily promote European leadership at 
a global level in science and technology. his requires excellence in research, longer-
term  research  agendas,  and  more  emphasis  on  radical  innovation  and  risk-taking 
research in the projects supported by the Programme. 

The  industrial  orientation  and  participation  in  the  Framework  Programme 
must  be  enhanced.  This  requires  restoring  industrial  relevance  and  leadership  in 
programmes aimed at innovation and competitiveness. In particular, high-tech SMEs 
should be able to find direct participation more attractive. 

A  simple  and  robust  definition  of  European  Added  Value  is  needed  for  the 
design and implementation of future Framework Programmes. 

The  administration  of  the  Framework  Programme  should  be  streamlined  and 
simplified.  The  streamlining  and  simplification  of  the  application  procedure, 
management and financial control of the projects must be vigorously pursued. There 
is a need to improve procedures, including the establishment of permanent panels in 
some  thematic  priority  areas  or  actions  for  the  evaluation  process  throughout  the 
duration of a Programme. 

The  selection  of  instruments  should  be  made  more  flexible  to  facilitate  the 
specific  characteristics  of  the  funded  RTD.  he  new  instruments  should  be 
maintained  in  the  next  Framework  Programme,  not  least  for  stability.  Research 
proposers should have the freedom to select the appropriate instruments. 

Human  resources  and  mobility  programmes  should  be  extended  in  scale  and 
scope.  Links  to  national/regional  programmes  should  be  encouraged  for  greater 
leverage.  Programme  design  must  ensure  that  industry  finds  it  attractive  to 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
8. 

9. 

10. 

participate.  Stronger  emphasis  on  mobility  between  the  public  and  private  sectors 
and from and to third countries is needed. 

The  Framework  Programme  must  continue  to  address  the  issue  of  trust  and 
legitimacy of science and  technology in Europe.  Science and society issues must 
continue to be addressed in a separate programme whilst also being embedded in all 
other programmes. Action is needed both at EU and Member State level. 

The  Commission  should  launch  a  consultation  with  the  main  stakeholders  in 
order  to  improve  the  IPR  procedures  within  Framework  Programmes. 
However,  the  basic  principles  on  IPR  rules  for  the  Framework  Programme  seem 
appropriate. 

The  assessment  of  the  Framework  Programme  should  be  further  developed 
systematically  and  should  reflect  the  new  understanding  of  the  interactive 
nature  of  innovation.  Assessment  should  also  address  the  structural  impact  of  the 
Framework Programme on the European economic and research landscape. 

FUTURE PERSPECTIVES – FRAMEWORK CONDITIONS 

The  challenges  for  European  research  and  innovation  policy  can  only  be  addressed  by  a 
systemic  approach  reflecting  the  interactive  nature  of  innovation  and  the  complexity  of  the 
European  innovation  system.  RTD  policy  should  be  coordinated  with  other  socio-economic 
policies  that  affect  the  European  innovation  environment.  These  include  competitiveness, 
intellectual property protection, competition, state aids, human resources, education, gender, 
and  ethics.  Demand-side  policies,  especially  public  procurement  of  RTD  and  innovative 
goods  and  regulation,  also  have  a  critical  role  to  play  in  promoting  innovation  and  the 
emergence of lead markets. We would like to see the Commission (i) address more clearly the 
contribution of the Framework Programmes to the broader EU policy formulation process; (ii) 
examine  ways  to  enhance  pull-through  of  innovative  technologies  through  demand-side 
actions; and (iii) intensify efforts together with Member States to train more researchers and 
to retain them by making research careers more attractive. 

We strongly advocate the swift implementation of the European patent with the requirement 
of a single language. The patentability of computer implemented inventions and of genetically 
modified  organisms  must  be  swiftly  resolved.  Fast  and  appropriate  IP  protection  is  an 
essential support for innovation and investment in RTD. 

The Community State Aids rules are under revision. RTD networks, involving companies of 
all  sizes  with  academia,  and  the  new  understanding  of  the  interactive  nature  of  innovation, 
challenge the traditional funding rules. Those limiting public funding to pre-competitive RTD 
and  defining  the  level  of  support  depending  on  the  recipient  firm  should  be  reviewed. 
Europe’s development should not be inhibited by the application of stricter rules than those of 
its main competitors. 

Finally, based on the evidence reviewed, the Panel offers a few recommendations on future 
EU research policy: 

(1) 

The  ERA  process  must  continue.  The  coherence  between  national  science  and 
innovation  policies  and  the  Framework  Programmes  must  increase.  The  Framework 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
Programme should cover high European value RTD activities, with tailoring for local 
effectiveness  and  take-up  occurring  at  national  and  regional  levels.  We  endorse  the 
actions  in  the  Commission’s  communication  on  the  future  EU  Research  Policy.  The 
actions  must  be  appropriately  designed  to  develop  high-quality,  internationally 
competitive  research  environments  in  Europe.  They  should  provide  Europe  with  a 
policy response to the key challenges identified above. 

(2) 

Europe must strive for the best integration of the New Member States. Inclusion in 
all EU policies and instruments is a prerequisite for effectively tapping the significant 
human  and  economic  potential  of  these  countries  to  build  a  more  competitive  and 
cohesive  Europe,  enjoying  sustained  development.  The  Framework  Programmes 
should help accelerate the process of integration. 

(3)  We support the establishment of a European Research Council. The Council needs 
sufficient resources to make a difference to the European science base. t must promote 
excellence in science, be cost efficient and encourage the development of world-class 
research  environments.  Scientific  fields  with  potential  for  long-term  impact  on 
competitiveness and innovation should also be strongly supported. 

(4)  We support the idea of establishing a limited number of ‘technology platforms’, with 
the  objective  of  establishing  European  leadership  in  key  emerging  technologies, 
thereby increasing private investment in RTD. These large collaborative programmes 
should  be  industry-driven,  with  public/private  partnerships  for  both  funding  and 
execution. They should involve academic institutions, large and small companies and, 
often,  participants  from  outside  Europe.  Excellent  management  of  pooled  resources, 
from  Framework  Programme,  national  sources  and  industry  will  be  needed  to  make 
an impact. 

EN 

10 

   EN